Can Record-Keeping Lapses Under the PCPNDT Act Be Dismissed as Mere Clerical Mistakes?

The decision underscores the Court’s continuing commitment to combating female foeticide and preserving the integrity of a legislation enacted to address India’s historically skewed sex ratio. The Court held that incomplete or inaccurate maintenance of Form ‘F’ records cannot be dismissed as mere technical or clerical lapses. Such deficiencies strike at the heart of the statutory scheme and may constitute offences under the PCPNDT Act.

Beyond the legal dispute, the judgment contains a powerful discussion on the value of the girl child, the continuing challenge of sex-selective practices, and the importance of strict enforcement of welfare legislation designed to protect unborn female children.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Dr. Ramesh, operated a sonography centre in Maharashtra. During an inspection conducted by authorities under the PCPNDT Act, alleged deficiencies were discovered in the maintenance of mandatory records, particularly Form ‘F’, which is prescribed under the Act and Rules for recording details of prenatal diagnostic procedures.

Following the inspection:

• The authorities seized the sonography equipment.
• A notice was issued under Section 20(1) of the PCPNDT Act.
• The appellant was called upon to explain the alleged violations.
• He appeared before the Advisory Committee.
• The Committee concluded that prima facie violations of the Act existed.
• The registration of the sonography centre was suspended, and the machine seized.

Subsequently, a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences punishable under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act for alleged violations of Sections 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 of the Act and relevant Rules.

The appellant challenged the order before the Sessions Court through a revision petition and thereafter before the Bombay High Court. Both challenges failed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The appeal raised two principal questions:

1. Competence of the Authority

The appellant argued that the Civil Surgeon who initiated proceedings was not the “Appropriate Authority” under the PCPNDT Act and therefore the complaint itself was invalid.

2. Nature of Deficiencies in Form ‘F’

The appellant contended that the omissions and blanks found in Form ‘F’ were merely technical mistakes or inadvertent clerical errors and did not indicate any intention to violate the Act. Therefore, criminal prosecution was unwarranted.

Statutory Framework

The PCPNDT Act was enacted to prohibit sex selection before and after conception and to prevent misuse of prenatal diagnostic techniques for determining the sex of the foetus.

Section 4(3)

This provision requires the person conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman to maintain complete records in the prescribed manner. The proviso specifically states that any deficiency or inaccuracy in such records shall amount to a contravention of Sections 5 and 6 unless the contrary is proved.

Sections 5 and 6

These provisions prohibit:

• Communication of the sex of the foetus.
• Conducting diagnostic procedures for sex determination.
• Sex selection before or after conception.

Section 23

Section 23 prescribes penalties for any medical practitioner or person associated with a genetic clinic who contravenes provisions of the Act or Rules.

Section 28

This provision regulates cognizance and stipulates that courts may take cognizance only upon complaints made by the Appropriate Authority or authorised officers.

Importance of Form ‘F’

A substantial portion of the judgment focuses on the significance of Form ‘F’.

Form ‘F’ is the statutory record required to be maintained whenever prenatal diagnostic procedures or ultrasonography are performed. It captures:

• Details of the patient;
• Number of existing children;
• Referral information;
• Medical indications for the procedure;
• Details of tests conducted;
• Declarations by both the patient and the doctor affirming that sex determination was neither sought nor disclosed.

The Court observed that Form ‘F’ serves as the principal regulatory mechanism through which authorities can monitor compliance with the Act. Without accurate records, enforcement becomes nearly impossible.

Findings of the Supreme Court

Appropriate Authority Was Competent

The Court rejected the challenge to the authority of the Civil Surgeon. A notification dated 15 May 2015 had validly designated the District Civil Surgeon as the Appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act. Consequently, the complaint was legally maintainable, and the Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance.

Deficiencies in Form ‘F’ Are Not Trivial

The Supreme Court firmly rejected the argument that omissions in Form ‘F’ were merely technical errors. The Court held that record maintenance forms the backbone of the PCPNDT enforcement mechanism. Any deficiency or inaccuracy directly undermines the object of the legislation. The proviso to Section 4(3) itself treats deficiencies in records as contraventions of Sections 5 and 6 unless rebutted by the accused.

Therefore, such lapses cannot automatically be dismissed as clerical mistakes.

Whether the omissions were innocent or deliberate is a matter to be established during trial and cannot be decided at the threshold stage.

Reliance on Earlier Precedents

The Court relied heavily upon earlier judgments interpreting the PCPNDT Act.

Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India

The Court recalled that female foeticide has roots in patriarchal attitudes and discriminatory social practices. It reiterated that destroying a female foetus effectively eliminates a future woman and causes long-term societal imbalance.

Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India

The Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in this landmark decision, where it was held that:

• Non-maintenance of records is not a mere clerical lapse.
• Record deficiencies are often the first indicator of illegal sex determination practices.
• Complete compliance with Form ‘F’ is mandatory.
• Dilution of statutory requirements would defeat the purpose of the legislation.

The Court quoted with approval the observation that:

“Non-maintenance of record is springboard for commission of offence of foeticide, not just a clerical error.”

Discussion on Sex Ratio and Social Context

One of the most remarkable aspects of the judgment is its extensive discussion of the continuing challenge posed by sex-selective practices in India.

Justice Sanjay Karol began the judgment by referring to the celebrated poem “Balika Ka Parichay” by Subhadra Kumari Chauhan, describing the joy associated with the birth of a daughter. The Court observed that the objective of the PCPNDT Act is to ensure that women experience joy free from societal prejudice.

The Court also invoked the ancient maxim:

“Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra devatah”

(“Where women are worshipped, there the gods reside.”)

Analysis of Statistical Data

The Court undertook an elaborate examination of contemporary demographic data.

It noted that:

• NFHS-5 recorded a sex ratio of 1,020 females per 1,000 males.
• However, the sex ratio at birth remained significantly lower at 929 females per 1,000 males.
• Historical census data revealed a decline in child sex ratio from 945 in 1991 to 927 in 2001 and further to 919 in 2011.

Although improvements have been recorded in recent years, the Court emphasised that progress remains uneven and incomplete. Several States continue to report sex ratios below the national average, demonstrating the persistence of patriarchal preferences and covert sex-selection practices.

Government Initiatives Recognised

The judgment also highlighted numerous governmental efforts aimed at improving the status of girls and combating female foeticide.

The Court referred to schemes such as:

• Beti Bachao Beti Padhao;
• Janani Suraksha Yojana;
• Aapki Beti Hamari Beti;
• Cradle Baby Scheme;
• Chief Minister Kanya Utthan Yojana;
• Sukanya Samriddhi Account;
• Kanyashree Prakalpa;
• Informer Reward Scheme under the PCPNDT Act; and several others.

According to the Court, these initiatives reflect sustained governmental commitment to addressing systemic discrimination against girls.

Supreme Court’s Final Decision

After examining the statutory provisions, the precedents, and the factual matrix, the Supreme Court concluded that:

1. The Appropriate Authority was competent to initiate proceedings.
2. The Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance.
3. Deficiencies in Form ‘F’ cannot be treated as insignificant clerical errors.
4. Whether the omissions were innocent or intentional is a matter for trial.
5. No interference with the criminal proceedings was warranted.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Conclusion

In Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2026 INSC 635), the Supreme Court delivered a strong message that the fight against female foeticide cannot be won through symbolic measures alone. The effectiveness of the PCPNDT Act depends upon rigorous compliance, meticulous record-keeping, and uncompromising enforcement. The Court made it clear that deficiencies in statutory records are not mere technical lapses but potential indicators of deeper violations.

By upholding criminal proceedings against the appellant, the Court reinforced the principle that every safeguard built into the PCPNDT framework serves a larger constitutional objective, protecting the right of every girl child to be born and to live with dignity.